Constitutional carry- what’s different other than no permit?

[MacFromOK]

Actually, I only posted part of that statute. Here's a link to the statute, and it is one that applies to all, although police and private investigators do have some "leeway."

Oklahoma Statute 21-1272.1

"A. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry or possess any weapon designated in Section 1272 of this title in any establishment where low-point beer, as defined by Section 163.2 of Title 37 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or alcoholic beverages, as defined by Section 506 of Title 37 of the Oklahoma Statutes, are consumed. This provision shall not apply to a peace officer, as defined in Section 99 of this title, or to private investigators with a firearms authorization when acting in the scope and course of employment, and shall not apply to an owner or proprietor of the establishment having a pistol, rifle, or shotgun on the premises. Provided however, a person possessing a valid handgun license pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act may carry the concealed or unconcealed handgun into any restaurant or other establishment licensed to dispense low-point beer or alcoholic beverages where the sale of low-point beer or alcoholic beverages does not constitute the primary purpose of the business.


Provided further, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize any peace officer in actual physical possession of a weapon to consume low-point beer or alcoholic beverages, except in the authorized line of duty as an undercover officer.

Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize any private investigator with a firearms authorization in actual physical possession of a weapon to consume low-point beer or alcoholic beverages in any establishment where low-point beer or alcoholic beverages are consumed.

B. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be punished as provided in Section 1272.2 of this title."

I used to work at the OSBI and my job involved applying charges and court dispositions to criminal records. I saw this statute quite a bit, and it wasn't applied to police officers and private investigators.

The sentence immediately following that in bold letters is what exempts those officers and PI's. The parts that I originally posted were there to explain that police could ONLY consume alcohol IF they were undercover and that nothing in the law allowed private investigators TO consume alcohol.

Still (unless I'm blind?), "consumption" is only mentioned regarding "Peace Officers" and "Private Investigators" (I assume because they're officers of the court?), whereas "carrying" in places that serve alcohol seems to include everyone.

And there's this part:
"Provided however, a person possessing a valid handgun license pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act may carry the concealed or unconcealed handgun into any restaurant or other establishment licensed to dispense low-point beer or alcoholic beverages where the sale of low-point beer or alcoholic beverages does not constitute the primary purpose of the business." Yet (still) no mention of consumption.

Feel free to point out where I'm wrong.

 

[TerryMiller]

Still (unless I'm blind?), "consumption" is only mentioned regarding "Peace Officers" and "Private Investigators" (I assume because they're officers of the court?), whereas "carrying" in places that serve alcohol seems to include everyone.

And there's this part:
"Provided however, a person possessing a valid handgun license pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act may carry the concealed or unconcealed handgun into any restaurant or other establishment licensed to dispense low-point beer or alcoholic beverages where the sale of low-point beer or alcoholic beverages does not constitute the primary purpose of the business." Yet (still) no mention of consumption.

Feel free to point out where I'm wrong.

Consumption is ONLY applied to undercover police, not PI's nor regular citizens. I suppose that undercover police can "consume" so as to keep up their "persona."

If I remember right, some prior comments were made that "the individual would only consume one or two drinks," not enough to reach the legal blood alcohol level. This statute says that they would be wrong in consuming alcohol.

 

[jfssms]

You sure about that? I know a 20 something that is going to do 6 years on a drug offense with minor children present. Formal sentencing next month, and I do get out alot.

I'll what i need

 

[Dumpstick]

Consumption is ONLY applied to undercover police, not PI's nor regular citizens. I suppose that undercover police can "consume" so as to keep up their "persona."

If I remember right, some prior comments were made that "the individual would only consume one or two drinks," not enough to reach the legal blood alcohol level. This statute says that they would be wrong in consuming alcohol.

The point being, private citizens are not mentioned at all. AFAIK, in the US, unless there is a law, statute, or regulation specifically AGAINST doing something, that something is legal.

The statute makes no mention of private citizens. It states LEO and PI cannot consume, with an exception carved out for undercover LEO.

It states that citizens may not carry in what is essentially a bar, but can carry in a restaurant licensed to sell.

It is silent on citizens consuming whilst carrying.

 

[SMS]

The point being, private citizens are not mentioned at all. AFAIK, in the US, unless there is a law, statute, or regulation specifically AGAINST doing something, that something is legal.

The statute makes no mention of private citizens. It states LEO and PI cannot consume, with an exception carved out for undercover LEO.

It states that citizens may not carry in what is essentially a bar, but can carry in a restaurant licensed to sell.

It is silent on citizens consuming whilst carrying.

Yes. Silent on consumption by regular Joes, but not silent on being under the influence.

There also appears to be a significant difference between carrying under a permit vs carrying under permitless carry.

 

[TerryMiller]

The point being, private citizens are not mentioned at all. AFAIK, in the US, unless there is a law, statute, or regulation specifically AGAINST doing something, that something is legal.

The statute makes no mention of private citizens. It states LEO and PI cannot consume, with an exception carved out for undercover LEO.

It states that citizens may not carry in what is essentially a bar, but can carry in a restaurant licensed to sell.

It is silent on citizens consuming whilst carrying.

Go back and read the first 7 words of that statute. It states: "A. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry or possess any weapon designated in Section 1272 of this title in any establishment where low-point beer, as defined by Section 163.2 of Title 37 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or alcoholic beverages, as defined by Section 506 of Title 37 of the Oklahoma Statutes, are consumed."

All references to police and PI's comes in the sentences afterward to serve to make exceptions for them.

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing, especially so with legal statutes.

 

[O4L]

There are reasons I don't agree with calling this Constitutional Carry.

It is Permitless Carry.

 

[CHenry]

You sure about that? I know a 20 something that is going to do 6 years on a drug offense with minor children present. Formal sentencing next month, and I do get out alot.

"A drug offense" leaves a lot ofquestions, Only simply possesion has been downgraded from a Felony to a misdemeanor. Maybe this person had an amount they consider "with intent to distribute"?

 

[corneileous]

There are reasons I don't agree with calling this Constitutional Carry.

It is Permitless Carry.

It’s really not even that. I realize we can’t control what other states require that we have reciprocity with but since Oklahoma let’s everyone else carry here for free without a permit, they could at least just convey the same liberty for the people who wish to travel armed outside the state. Who cares that some other states require us to have an Oklahoma permit- they don’t have to know that Oklahoma just gives us one.

But even with the difference in restaurant carry; why should you need a permit just to carry in a restaurant armed, that sells alcohol? That makes absolutely zero sense. I could kinda see it making a little more sense if there was actually a lot more training involved in the SDA class than what there is but I don’t see how just showing someone that you can safely load/unload a handgun, knowing which end is the dangerous end and putting bullet holes on a paper target means the difference of safety being able to carry a handgun in a restaurant that serves alcohol, or to another state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[HeyEng]

It’s really not even that. I realize we can’t control what other states require that we have reciprocity with but since Oklahoma let’s everyone else carry here for free without a permit, they could at least just convey the same liberty for the people who wish to travel armed outside the state. Who cares that some other states require us to have an Oklahoma permit- they don’t have to know that Oklahoma just gives us one.

But even with the difference in restaurant carry; why should you need a permit just to carry in a restaurant armed, that sells alcohol? That makes absolutely zero sense. I could kinda see it making a little more sense if there was actually a lot more training involved in the SDA class than what there is but I don’t see how just showing someone that you can safely load/unload a handgun, knowing which end is the dangerous end and putting bullet holes on a paper target means the difference of safety being able to carry a handgun in a restaurant that serves alcohol, or to another state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

My opinion is that the bill was pushed through so quickly that these errors were made. In no way, shape, or form is that Constitutional Carry...there are simply too many restrictions as it's written. I keep having flashbacks to Pelosi saying, "You have to pass the bill to see what's in it!!"

While I applaud the work of Don Spencer and the OK2A association, I think it would do them well to consult with others that have been successful in passing legislation that isn't so damn confusing and restrictive.

I am still pretty new here and don't wish to ruffle too many feathers, so I will "pipe down now!" lest I not be a helpful member of this cause.